The Middle East section of the interview contained an American warning that if Israel and the Arabs fail to get into substantive discussions, there will be a drift toward war. The U.S. still wanted the Geneva Peace Conference before the end of 1977, although Mr. Vance realized that the issues being so difficult, "it might take months or even years to accomplish. "Mr. Vance also discussed the possibility of U.S. guarantees to Israel that could include a U.S. defence treaty with Israel. Excerpts follow:
Q. For many years Washington has worked on the assumption that the Russians were bent on exploiting the Arab-Israeli conflict and that they should be kept on the sidelines. Why have you reversed this policy overnight by issuing a joint declaration with the Soviets on Mideast peace negotiations?
A. The Russians have a role to play in the Middle East. They are one of the two Co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference. It has been our view from the outset that we should seek to work with the Soviets in a constructive way to try to move toward the reconvening of the Geneva Conference and to search for a just and lasting peace. Therefore, we have sought to work with them in a cooperative fashion to achieve these ends. I think we are making some progress, and I think that it will help both of us in terms of bringing about a Geneva Conference and also in making progress once a Geneva Conference is convened.
Q. Aren't the Russians really bent on making mischief in the Middle East rather than ending the conflict there?
A. I don't think that's true. I think that we ought to proceed on the assumption that they are willing to work in a cooperative fashion unless we find the contrary to be true.
Q. What role would you expect the Soviets to play?
A. I would hope that the Soviets would encourage, as we have encouraged, all of the parties to take a more flexible and cooperative attitude to move forward towards serious negotiations.
Q. Do you feel that if the Russians were not brought into an active role they would try to wreck a settlement eventually?
A. I wouldn't use the word "wreck." I would say that I think they have the capability of playing either a helpful or a spoiling role.
Q. Do you see the Russians involved in international peacekeeping operations in the Middle East and perhaps in Southern African or other areas of conflict?
A. I think it has been the general feeling of most nations that it is a mistake for either of the so-called two great powers, the Soviets or ourselves, to have actual troops involved in peacekeeping operations. That does not mean, however, that we cannot play a constructive role through providing logistic support and other help, such as we have done in many peacekeeping operations in the past.
It also does not preclude either of us from playing the role of a guarantor of a peace that is arrived at. This, of course, would have to be done in accordance with the constitutional processes of our respective countries - namely, by working through the Congress in the case of the United States. Supplying peacekeeping forces is better done by the medium and smaller countries.
Q. You would rule out American troops in the Middle East?
A. Yes, I think that is unlikely and probably unwise.
Q. Why is the administration so determined to get everyone to a new Geneva Conference, even though the differences between the two sides seem irreconcilable?
A. Unless you get the people to the bargaining table, you're never going to get down to the serious issues which have to be dealt with. As I look back over history and my own experience in the Vietnam negotiations in 1968, I've seen too much time spent on procedural issues while lives are threatened or even lost. I, for one, feel very strongly that the important thing is to get the people to the bargaining table so they can sit down and really start negotiating serious issues. When I think back to the Vietnam negotiations, and of the many months that we spent arguing about the shape of a table, about the speaking order, about whether there would be flags or not, when all the time killing was going on, it has left a rather deep scar.
Q. Is there a danger that even if you get everybody to go to Geneva that you will have a quick collapse because of the wide differences?
A. I want to make it very clear that although we've been talking a lot publicly about procedures, we also have been talking seriously in our conversations with each one of the Foreign Ministers about the substance of a settlement. A great deal of quiet, important work has been going on with each one of the Foreign Ministers, talking about the terms of peace treaties which would be negotiated once we get to Geneva.
I don't want to minimize the difficulty of the issues that are going to have to be negotiated when you get down to hard, substantive bargaining. It's going to be very, very difficult, and it's going to take a lot of time. We can't expect miracles to happen overnight. It might take months or even years to accomplish.
Q. Do you think a breakdown of a Geneva Conference would lead inevitably to another war?
A. If we fail to get into substantive discussions, then the drift will be toward war.
Q. How can you hope to persuade Israel to accept PLO participation at Geneva and the establishment of a Palestinian entity when Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan says he will walk out if such terms are pressed?
A. We have agreed that there should be a unified Arab delegation, with Palestinians in the delegation. We have not yet been able to reach agreement on who the Palestinians will be. This is something that we're continuing to work on with all the parties. If we can get agreement among the parties as to how to define who the Palestinians will be, then I think we will have made a major step forward. I think this is possible.
Q. And on the question of a Palestinian entity?
A. When you start discussing the questions of Gaza and the West Bank, obviously that takes you into the Palestinian question and our position is very clear on this. We have said we believe that there should be a Palestinian homeland. We have said, however, that it's our preference that the Palestinian homeland should be affiliated with Jordan.
This is obviously a question that has to be negotiated by the parties. We have said we're not going to impose a solution. We are going to express our views. We will use persuasion to try to bring the parties together, but the final settlements have to be agreed among the parties if they are going to be lasting settlements.
Let me make another point. We have made it very clear to Israel that we stand foursquare behind our commitments to their security and that we will not do anything which would jeopardize their security by trying to exercise pressure through the withholding of military assistance or economic assistance.
Q. How far are you willing to go to provide military security for Israel to get them to go the last mile to a peace settlement with the Arabs?
A. We have said in the joint statement which we issued with the Soviets that we would be prepared to consider the question of guarantees of any peace agreement provided that it were done in accordance with the constitutional processes of the United States and agreed by the parties.
Q. Does that mean a bilateral U.S. defense treaty with Israel?
A. It could.